Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19980812ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12 , 1998 Vice-chairperson Roger Moyer called the meeting to order with Mary Hirsch, Susan Dodington, Heidi Friedland and Melanie Roschko present. Excused were Gilbert Sanchez and Suzannah Reid. Absent was Jeffrey Halferty. MOTION: Susan moved to approve the minutes of dune lOth, dune 24th, duly 8th and duly 22nd; second by Heidi. All in favor, motion carried. STAFF COMMENTS Mary brought up the issue of the picture board for 414 N. First. and the Isis Theatre. Staff will follow up. SISTER CITY FLAG CIRCLE Amy Guthrie, planner relayed at the last meeting an improved site plan was to be presented. DEPP reviewed the plan and the fire department reviewed the site for emergency equipment. City Council also approved the location. There would be five flag polls and a special paving detail which unifies the flag polls. Sheri Sanzone, architect for Design workshop stated that an information plaque identifying Aspen's history will be installed in the paving of the brick. Stan Clauson, Community Development Director relayed that if there were to be a trolley the flag site would be relocated. If at some point another sister city is appointed the flags would be relocated. 214 E. BLEEKER - EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL Mary moved to extend the conceptual approval for 214 E. Bleeker, Brumder 's property to August 12, 1999; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12 , 1998 920 W. HALLAM - CONCEPTUAL Sworn in were: Glenn Rappaport Ron Robertson Mitch Haas, planner presented. The ridge height on the western house has been lowered to 21 feet. The windows on A have also been scaled down. The site coverage variance request is 2%, from 35 to 37%. There is also a request for the 500 square foot FAR variance which would be applicable to lot B only. Glenn stated that the roof connector piece between the garage and the house is proposed to be translucent corrugated fiberglass to provide light. Susan relayed that her concern is still with the height of the western house. Melanie relayed that building A to the west still seems quite high. She also inquired about the bonus and what would happen if it was not granted. Glenn relayed that the house on the right would be 500 square feet less. The lot that contains the two buildings is using the 500 square foot historic lot split bonus for its project. Melanie asked for clarification about the parking spaces; do they count for uncovered area which is part of the 37% request. It is basically non usable open space. Mitch explained that the site coverage is not the same thing as open space. There is no open space requirement in the R-6 zone district. The site coverage deals with area covered by buildings. It is a code issue. Ron Robertson relayed that from the last meeting house A has been lowered, the western most house. Mitch explained that the ridge height on the western house, the first gable end is at the height and is even with the ridge height of the historic house next 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12 , 1998 door. The ridge height of the upper gable is lower than the ridge height of the eastern most house. Maw stated that she site visited the property and because of the way the bridge is situated and how low it is, visually you will not see much of the house. The westerly unit is in a hole. Melanie stated that you will see more of that side of the house than two stories or one stow. You will see foundation because of the way it is cut down. It will look taller than two stories. Susan stated that it looks taller than two stories. Melanie stated she is still cancemed with the overall height of it and the appearance of that side of the house. Mitch stated that there is another property between the house and bridge. Glenn Rappaport stated that the building is a one and a half stow elevation. It is not a two stow elevation. It looks like a 16 foot wide wall. The scale is minuscule compared to next door. Melanie stated that she has no problem with house B because it feels like it is balanced. Ron stated that it is interesting to him that members think the house is too tall when he had lowered the house. Susan stated that she wants the house lowered more. Ron stated that it was lowered in relationship to the alley. Vice-chairman Roger Mayer opened the continued public hearing from July 10th, 1998. Maw inquired about the square window in the lower gable on house B. Ran relayed that he did not want the front facades to match. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12 , 1998 Mitch's concern was not the window but the compliance with the variance standards. Glenn stated that a one and a half story has a plate height in the upper floor that is lower in scale but it is still an occupied second story. Susan asked if the height of the roof could be lowered and what would they loose. Ron stated in order to have it inhabitable where the wall meets the floor it can't get any lower than five feet and there is a seven 1/2 plate height and that could be lowered to six. Susan asked if the walls could remain the same and lower the 12 x 12 pitch of the roof on the western building. Glenn stated if you lower the roof pitch it becomes less historic because a 12 x 12 is very historic. It is being made this way because it follows the most common roof angle for a miners cabin. The buildings would change dramatically if the roof was flat. Susan stated that all the roof pitches do not have to be the same. Melanie relayed that the height of the western building has always been an issue from the start and how that is accomplished is up to the architect. Roger questioned the window in the Peak of House B and what was the intent of the window. Ron relayed that the windows are a variation of a modem theme. Mary requested that the window in the gable end of the front facade be removed. It is more for design purposes and that would eliminate a variance. Mary stated that the three front facades all look different and the window is not necessary. Each building has a personality of its own. Ron relayed that he will take the window out. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12 , 1998 Roger stated that the project is excellent. MOTION: Mary moved to approve the following for 920 W. Hallam: 1. Continuance of the off-site relocation, pending determination of a suitable receiving site. 2. Approval of the Conceptual Significant Development application as proposed, including the following: A. A variance from the minimum side yard setbacks' of five (5)feet to allow for two (2) foot side yard setbacks' on both sides of Lot B for the lightwells (the walls' of the structures would meet the five foot setback requiremenO ; B. A variance from the combined side yard setback requirement of twenty- three (23) feet to allow for a combined side yard setback of seven (7) feet on Lot B; C. A variance from the maximum site coverage requirement of thirty-five (35) percent (2, 666 square fee0 to allow for a site coverage of thirty-seven (3 7) percent; D. A 500 square foot FAR bonus applicable to Lot B; E. The ability to make revisions in order to comply with the volume provision of the Residential Design Standards' where variances have not been granted (see condition 3, below,); F. Approval of this Conceptual Development Plan shall not constitute final approval of significant development or permission to proceed with development, this approval shall constitute only authorization to proceed with a development application for a final development plan. Application for a final development plan meeting the requirements' of Section 26. 72.010(F)(4) shall be filed within one (1) year of the date of this conceptual development plan approval. Unless an extension is granted by the HPC, failure toff& such final application shall render null and void the approval of this conceptual development plan. G. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by an entity having the authority to do so. H. Revisit the site concerns as expressed by the HPC at the August 12th meeting and the height concerns of the A house. 3. Approval of the following variances from the "l/blume "provision (26. 58.040(F) (12) of the Residential Design Standards': 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12 , 1998 A. For the new structure on Lot B; the two small (2 'x2 ) square windows on the south elevation's taller gable and the one in the dormer shall be allowed as proposed, as will the window in the dormer of the east elevation, and the small square window in the dormer of the west elevation. The single square window on the front most wall of the south elevation shall be eliminated or redesigned to comply with the volume standard; and B. For the new structure on Lot A; the two small (2 'x2 ) square windows highest up on the south elevation's taller gable shall be allowed as proposed; the window son the front most wall of the south elevation shall not extend beyond nine feet above the floor height. motion second by Melanie. Discussion: Mary inquired about the 500 square foot FAR bonus and does that also have to have final approval. Mitch stated that it was his understanding that the public hearing was conceptual and that the variance is part of the dimensional requirements. He understands that the bonus is given at conceptual. Mitch asked the attorney if they could revisit the bonus at final. David stated that they could but it might be a problem for them in the final design to bring it without the bonus. Roger suggested tabling. Mitch said the direction for final is to bring A house height down lower. Vote: Roger, yes; Mary, yes, Melanie, no; Susan, no. Motion dies. Glenn stated that the bonus significantly impacts what the architects do. It can't hang out in space somewhere. The 500 square foot bonus should not be tied to the concerns about volume. The volume concerns should be separate and be addressed and be resolved to the satisfaction of the majority of the board. The houses are not getting any larger floor area wise, those numbers are set. It should not be applied to final because there is a false alliance. You are saying that you approve of the concept of the project. There is not uniminitiy to come me back with. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12 , 1998 Roger stated that the HPC should not get hung up on an elevation of a building which you can't see unless you climb up on the bridge and look down. If this is not approved we do not get to look at it. Melanie said the bonus is for an exemplary project. NEWMOTION: Mary made the same motion but stated D. the 500 square foot bonus is to be dealt with at final; second by Melanie. All in favor, motion carried 4-0. Roger, Mary, Susan and Melanie voted. 735 W. BLEEKER - CONCEPTUAL Sworn in: Andrew Dolan Charles Cunniffe Rich Pancake Ryan Hoffman Michelle Dolan Amy Guthrie presented and relayed at the last meeting the HPC gave the applicant strong direction to revise the proposed project and retain more of the existing structure and to detach the two units and to maintain the current orientation of the house. The request is for landmark designation, conceptual, partial demolition and on-site relocation. The majority of the existing house is being retained except for a side addition which appears to be historic but it has been altered. The house will remain in its place on Bleeker Street and a new detached unit is proposed behind it. The project has improved substantially since the last meeting. Staff can support the removal of the addition although it appears to be somewhat historic it also appears to be the appropriate place for an addition given that two detached units are being done and the applicant cannot add on directly behind the house. Staff would like the HPC to look at lowering or eliminating the second floor addition. Staff supports opening up the front porch that is currently enclosed; however, they should replace the windows on the front of the house so that they are more 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12 , 1998 like historic windows. Staff is also in support of the variances and the on-site relocation and Ord. #30 variances. Charles Cunniffe relayed to the HPC that the second story element is pulled back half the distance of the house as indicated on the north elevation. The addition allows more compatibility to the neighbor because it has a higher element that reflects the higher house to the east. The addition adds a room with a view of Aspen Mountain to the owner. The owner agreed to eliminate the railing on the porch and restore the windows. Susan requested that the old materials be reused in the new porch. Charles stated that they will look at using the materials but staff was against using old materials in new construction because that confuses what is old and new. Members had concern with the North elevation back gable height. Charles indicated that they could reduce the height two feet. They would loose windows on the side elevation but could do a popout dormer. At the same time the door on the front would need a window above it to accommodate the view. Mary relayed that the proposed solution is more acceptable for the HPC than a looming addition. Other members supported the ridge being lowered before granting conceptual. Members requested a site plan showing the two houses in order to see the relationship between the two houses. All members supported landmark designation. The size of the siding and scale of the trim on the new portions should not emulate the historic portions. The Board requested a model for the next meeting. Amy relayed that the applicant requested clapboard siding on the new building and possibly another material should be added. MOTION: Mary moved to table conceptual development and the public hearing on 735 W. Bleeker until Sept. 9, 1998; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12 , 1998 MUSIC TENT - REFERRAL COMMENTS Bruce Berger relayed that the timing of this meeting is not appropriate as it conflicts with performances in the tent. Cindy Biniskey, Chief operating officer for the Aspen Institute. The submission is in keeping with the original intent of the SPA and as well as in keeping with the spirit intent of the mission of the Meadows. Dick Osur, relayed that he is involved with the Historical Society and gives walking tours and talks about the wonderful historical buildings. All things new are not bad. Jerry Gretskey relayed that it is most important that the music tent go ahead as quickly as possible that it is going to be a terrific contribution to the music, to the audience and to the town and all our visitors that come in the summer. She also stated that she is a registered voter. Sworn in were: John Doremus, Jon Busch, Bill Frazier, Eric Calderon, Lynn Harrell, Glenn Rappaport, Les Holst, Bob Blaich, Martin Flugh, Paul Kanter, Tony Paepcke, Bill Stirling, Jim Curtis, Don Erdley, Ruth Leon, Robert Harth. Stan Clauson, Community Development director relayed that there is an ongoing roll for the HPC to advise on matters of aesthetics with respect to the tent replacement. A few guidelines were established by staff: 1)Any new material should be consistent with the original open historic character of the tent. 2)The design shall continue to support visual and acoustical access to performances from outdoor seating and burms. Stan stated it would be most helpful for this referral to deal with matters of the nature of the material and appropriateness of the material and the design. The openness of the tent and the relationship of the tent to the surrounding area should be addressed. Harry Teague, architect informed the board that there are several problems with the existing facility mostly coming from the musicians. There is difficulty for the musicians to hear each other. The distance from the conductor is a concern. The sound from the orchestra creates dead pockets. There are only two bathroom facilities for the musicians. With the trenchial 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12 , 1998 rains, water gets on the stage and there are violins worth two million dollars getting rained on. Most of the sound is absorbed into the canvas of the tent. Presently the canvas gets replaced every seven years. Taking it up and down each year causes wear and tear. The competition is fierce. Tanglewood just built a new facility that covers the orchestra with a hard surface and it has holes in the walls in order for the music to travel outside. There are features about the old tent that we all enjoy such as the quality of light and the circular arrangement of the seating and the awareness that you are not quite indoors. There are inherent flaws: The canopy over the musicians is at the wrong angle. It is also too close to the musicians. NEW PLAN: In order to get the height above the orchestra the performance surface has been lowered in order to keep it within the existing footprint which was one of the guidelines. The original Herbert Bayer octagonal geometry has been preserved. The students need to see the conductor and hear each other. There are glass panels and basically the structure that holds up the tent has been changed. The proposed material has a transparency for light and is the same white color. Canvas louvers with metal frames are proposed in blue for the sides of the tent. This device allows the sun to be blocked out but let the air in. The proposed system is not insulated anymore than the current system and the tent will be up all year. Heat and humidity will be pumped up for the musicians but it is not a usable facility in the winter. Sworn in, the entire room: Public Philosophy: 1)John Doremus stated that the Bayer Benedict tent was built in 1964 and it was originally designed as an enclosed hall but there was not enough funding. The Aspen Music school and Aspen Music Festival is trying to give the opportunity to talented students the best and to encourage the artists and faculty to come back. 2) Jon Busch stated that he played in the original Saarinen tent in the 50's. The original tent had wooden posts holding it up and the sides were orange and then changed to the present color blue. This is not a new tent, it takes the best of the past two tents together for the future. The design is sensitive to the past. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12 , 1998 3) Bill Frazier, neighbor stated that the proposed design is outstanding. He is also the vice-president for the Aspen Center for Physics. They unanimously voted to support the project and the Center would not be here if it were not for the Music Festival. 4) Eric Calderon, Little Nell stated that during the festival they are virtually 100% full. People come here for the cultural events. The proposal raises the quality level of the festival. 5) Lynn Harroll, soloist has been coming to Aspen for over 40 years. He played here as a student and as a soloist. When he first came there were no paved roads and he has lived through numerous changes. Clinging to the past is tempting but in this case misleading. This valley makes the Aspen Festival with the music and musicians. For years they accepted the draw backs in which they have to perform and work because it is Aspen. The tent acoustically is a disgrace. There is no other comparable international festival in which he plays on this level. When it comes to chamber music he can't have his own dressing room in which to warm up properly. It makes the playing that much more difficult. With a new tent we will be getting something better not loosing what we have. 6) Glenn Rappaport began working for Harry Teague 15 years ago. He was a member of the HPC and chairman of the Aspen Community Plan's character committee and a member of the board of trustees in Basalt. Harry has been involved with the Anderson Ranch, Snowmass, Community School and the beginning of Harris Hall and Physics center. He is qualified to preserve and enhance the feeling of community and the town should be grateful to his sensitivity and level of thinking that is going into this project. 7) Les Holst quoted from the book Pattern Language; "traditional societies have always recognized the importance of special sites which have held spiritual, physiological or emotional significance to people there. Modem society often ignores the importance of these places. He considers Aspen as special and apparently the MAA does not. His analogy is Red Rocks as there is no bad sound and it is a great experience. With this proposal is the creation of something other than Aspen. It is the Aspen experience that drives the MAA and everything else. How you deal with the Aspen experience is first and everything else second. 8) Bob Blaich, neighbor wrote an article in the Aspen magazine called "evolution not revolution". Meaningful architecture goes beyond the function and it is expressed in form and space. One sees a building and feels architecture. It should be a personal and a spiritual experience. 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12 , 1998 9) Martin Flug relayed that there is an Aspen experience and it takes many forms to many different people. The Wheeler Opera house went through the same process. 10) Paul Canter, serves on the Board of Trustees. He came to Aspen in 1971 to listen and perform on stage. He first came to Aspen at the age of 14 as a violinist. The tent has ambiance and it is essentially an outdoor facility. The audience and musicians benefit unitedly during a performance. Legendary soloist like Lynn Harroll perform with the subtle and nuance of expression and you will hear and experience a whole new level with the new acoustical facility. 11) Tony Paepcke DeBrul relayed that she carries a lot of weight behind her and she listened to Lynn Haroll's parents sing and play in the tent. She has been here since 1945 when the talk of the tent and future were discussed. Her parents most cared about and supported excellence. The best way of honoring the past is by going to the future and knowing that the musicians and artists are making the most beautiful music that they can. 12) Bill Stirling stated that the old tent is like an old shoe and it is hard to throw it away. He understands what Les Holst said. The level of commitment that the MAA is signaling to the community through time and money is a long term commitment. 13) Jim Curtis relayed that the presentation is one of the best he has heard in 20 years. He lives three blocks from the tent but he is 100% behind the project and it is for the good of the community. 14) Donnelley Erdman relayed that he went to a symposium last week with the HPC and Aspen has the ability to landmark historic sites and structures. They also have the ability to landmark what physical things mean the most to the town in the summer. At the symposium the MAA tent and Nick DeWolf' s fountain were brought up. The tent form is important to Aspen. 15) Ruth Leon, arts correspondence for the BBC. For the past 17 years she has been covering the Music Festival's students, artists and programs. She also does other arts festivals all over the world. Aspen also has world class audiences but the facility is not world class. The students and audiences deserve something better. DESIGN ISSUES: Mary inquired about the properties of the canvas and its durability with the snow load if allowed to be up all winter. The material should be able to 12 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12 , 1998 withstand the four seasons and not have the breaks etc. that occur with new materials. Another question was concerning the students practicing in Harris Hall then going through the tunnel to the tent. Harry relayed that the flatter portion in the middle of the tent is for acoustics and the cable construction distributes the canvas as a secondary layer. The snow comes down and sits on the cables. The snow sits there until it melts as there is no snowmelting involved. The technical portion of this proposal is being handled by the tent people. The Denver airport has two surfaces and this does not. Harry stated that they do have concerns with the winter elements. He also stated that the hard surface over the middle will alleviate some of the concerns. Robert Harth addressed the rehearsals and stated that Harris Hall is used for different rehearsals that are going on at the same time as the performances in the tent. The hall is only closed from midnight to 6:00 a.m. Melanie's concerns were that all research be completed regarding what could happen with the current structure or a similar current structure. She also had concerns about the durability of the fabric. Harry stated one of the major problems is the space between the canopy and the musicians. In order to raise the canopy you have to change the tent. The fabric on some tents has lasted twenty years. Teflon is not a fabric that is susceptible to UV rays. Roger inquired about the service vehicles and requested a landscape plan. He also questioned the gravel presently around the tent. Harry indicated that the primary service will go in through Harris Hall and then down the freight elevator and in the tunnel. The instruments will have less impact on them. In the configuration of the tent there will be a small narrow band of gravel. Roger asked Robert Harth his views on landmarking the tent parcel. Robert indicated that he would never want to see anything but a tent at that site and he would support protecting that concept. 13 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12 , 1998 HPC DISCUSSION: Mary stated that a landscape plan should be presented. The HPC is reviewing materials, design and how the tent relates to its surroundings and the character of the area. There will still be bench seating. Susan stated that the tent is an icon of the town and a resource. She is opposed to the tent being replaced. Melanie relayed that the material and design to the surroundings is appropriate and if the festival was lost it would be the end of the summers in Aspen for numerous years. Heidi agrees that there are sacred places and the tent is an Aspen experience. There is a need for a facility that strives for excellence. Roger reviewed the criteria for an amendment to an SPA and all issues were complied with. The HPC was also in favor of the parcel be designated. MOTION: Mary moved to forward to council that the HPC supports' the new Music tent proposal; second by Heidi. Motion carried 4-1. 117 N. 6TH STREET Amy Guthrie, planner presented. It is a 9,000 square foot lot in the west end and there is an historic cottage built in 1885. It is listed on the historic inventor but is not landmarked. The request is partial demolition, on-site relocation and Ord. #30. Staff has concerns about the 31% of the historic walls being demolished. All of the house was built by 1893 through a series of steps and it is of some concern that historic materials are being demolished. Most importantly is the relationship of the addition to the historic house regarding compatibility. The applicant has met many of the HPC concerns by having two distinct masses. Staff feels that there are compatibility issues between the two buildings that HPC should discuss. The 14 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12 , 1998 linking element is tying the two houses back together and the historic house is becoming secondary. An addition needs to be subservient or secondary to the historic house and Staff feels it is not, due to the angle proposed of the addition. There is also a request for a variance from Ord. #30 and Staff is opposed to that request. Staff request continuation of the proposal. David Panico, architect presented. The project is not at the allowable FAR, it is about 250 feet under. An awful lot of this design came from the last meeting in that the board wanted to see two distinct projects connected with a link. The device as a way to make the addition secondary was to angle the mass. If they were side by side they would compete against one another. Angling the new mass is poetic and getting out of the way of the historic house. The new mass is sunk in the ground and the ridge height is seven feet lower than it could possibly be. The roof bays are scaled down to be smaller than what exists on the historic structure. David request HPC direction to the massing and the angling of the addition. QUESTIONS & COMMENTS The HPC feels the parcel should be landmarked. Several members felt turning the house in this neighborhood was inappropriate due to the linear streets in the west end. The addition is not subservient to the little cottage. It should also be moved further away from the house and be connected by a simple connection and use the entry of the cottage. Excavation should occur far enough away from the trees in order to save them. The use of stone makes the house look more massive and overpowering the little cottage. The use of wood would be less imposing. Moving it further away as a separate unit would work better. Other comments were that the structure has no relationship what-so-ever to the historic cottage. The mass and scale of the entire structure dwarfs the historic resource which is one of the best ones that we have around. The site and trees are fabulous. The use of materials, 'rock' over powers it. By looking at this structure you would never know that they did not max out the FAR (250 sq. fl. less). Comments were made that it is difficult because the cottage is 900 square feet and you are allowed almost 3,000 additional square feet. Even though the addition is only 2,600 square feet given the size of the 15 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12 , 1998 structures in the west end it is not that big but it feels much bigger. Possibly reduce the height toward the front. Maybe part of it should not be a two story. The pediment doorway is out of scale. If the shed is relocated use it as part of something, i.e. garden. Amy relayed that there is no way that we are going to make a 3,000 square foot addition look right. There are so many options available for this site as a preservation goal. The two houses could be connected underground. Use the little cottage as a guest house. Do two detached structures, or do a lot split and do three little cottages. The board needs to give direction that this size of addition is not compatible and cannot meet the findings or criteria. Other Comments: The entrance should be as obscure as possible. Placed at an angle takes away from the historic resource. It does not meet with standard one or two. Maybe a porch link would work better. Bring the doors to a normal height. David Panico stated he specifically asked if the board was in favor of angling the addition and what was acceptable as a connection and it was defined. He relayed that Roger stated the most minimal attachment would be acceptable especially if it was glass. Three proposals were presented at the worksession. It was clear that a delineation between the projects was what HPC wanted. It relayed that it is the owners prerogative to build the allowable FAR. Side yard, front yard combined setbacks all take a play on this parcel. He relayed that the only other way to go is to build a structure on the back of the structure and have it connected more dramatically and involving more demolition to the existing structure. Roger informed the HPC that at the worksession he was not in favor of any of the three designs. He suggested moving some of the structure toward the alley and around the tree and ask for a variance. If you put the tower stuff on the alley you have less impact on the historic structure. There should be a step-down to the historic structure. Melanie suggested using part of the basement to create less mass on the surface. 16 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12 , 1998 MOTION: Melanie moved to continue the public hearing and partial demolition of] ] 7 N. 6th Street until .dugust 26; second by [-[eidi. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Roger moved to adjourn; second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 17 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12 , 1998 SISTER CITY FLAG CIRCLE ............................................................................................................. 1 214 E. BLEEKER - EXTENSION OF CONCEPTUAL ....................................................................... 1 920 W. HALLAM - CONCEPTUAL .................................................................................................... 2 735 W. BLEEKER - CONCEPTUAL .................................................................................................... 7 MUSIC TENT - REFERRAL COMMENTS ........................................................................................ 9 117 N. 6TH STREET ............................................................................................................................ 14 18